Phishing Detection in the Gen-AI Era: Quantized LLMs vs Classical Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phishing attacks are becoming increasingly sophisticated, underscoring the need for detection systems that strike a balance between high accuracy and computational efficiency. This paper presents a comparative evaluation of traditional Machine Learning (ML), Deep Learning (DL), and quantized small-parameter Large Language Models (LLMs) for phishing detection. Through experiments on a curated dataset, we show that while LLMs currently underperform compared to ML and DL methods in terms of raw accuracy, they exhibit strong potential for identifying subtle, context-based phishing cues. We also investigate the impact of zero-shot and few-shot prompting strategies, revealing that LLM-rephrased emails can significantly degrade the performance of both ML and LLM-based detectors. Our benchmarking highlights that models like DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 14B (Q8_0) achieve competitive accuracy, above 80%, using only 17 GB of VRAM, supporting their viability for cost-efficient deployment. We further assess the models’ adversarial robustness and cost-performance tradeoffs, and demonstrate how lightweight LLMs can provide concise, interpretable explanations to support real-time decision-making. These findings position optimized LLMs as promising components in phishing defence systems and offer a path forward for integrating explainable, efficient AI into modern cybersecurity frameworks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".